Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

The Big Capture Zones System Thread


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 _Nambu

_Nambu

    Junior Member

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 13 July 2015 - 10:08 AM

Hi all, I am a brand new FE programmer, and I am currently working on the objectives system and capture system.

 

I thought It' d be a really good thing to have a community-ideas-stimulating-discussion here about how to implement such a system reflecting a teamwork-oriented gameplay. So get ready for a good brainstorming session and post here below your ideas and playing experiences!(but please let me first take a bit of time post about my current design before anything :) )


  • kuopassa likes this

#2 _Nambu

_Nambu

    Junior Member

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 13 July 2015 - 04:44 PM

So.. here below there are my design's core ideas. They are about a few concepts: cohesion between squads/team on the terrain, favouring squad teamwork, preventing unrealistic tactics like lone wolfing and rewarding good maneuvers.
 
 
--Smaller and map-filling objectives
 
In all the red orchestra (and mods like dh) maps there are zones wich are vital for the match, but their conquer/ownership is not rewarded by the gamearrow-10x10.png.
And with that I am talking especially about flanks and non-objective buildings or cover zones. Also, knowing (by seeing the capzone's state on the minimap) wheter in these zones there are enemies or not is a very good thing, as It would make it far simplier to understand the match's situation.
 
As I were a newbie too I should point also that don't understanding the situation and getting shot from nowhere makes the gamearrow-10x10.png very punishing and then it becomes very very easy to have newbies leaving the gamearrow-10x10.png. In my opinion, making it simplier would surely help the game.
 
Another point for having little objectives would be the absence of the "ten players on the bath can cap the house" problem.
 
--Minimum amount of players to attack
 
Capping would not start if there are not enough players to cap. Imho 2 for little capzones, and more for more important zones such as big buildings. The mean of this is to not make the players advance on that zone if there are not enough players, even if there are no enemies on the capzone. And have them group (and maybe organise) attacks, favouring squad cohesion.
 
--Off limits capzones
 
No possibility for the player to enter and leave or stay on an enemy capzone's terrain unless there aren't enough mates near him to cap the zone to attack it.*
This is intended to prevent people passing through objectives and without capping them. Someone may point here that flanking would be penalized by having to capture objectives before getting in the desired position, but before saying that look here below.
 
*This would also apply to defenders who remained in the objective.
 
--Different capture speeds per objective
 
This means faster capture for capzones wich don't have many defenders and are not so much important or have very few cover. Typically objectives that the attackers need for flanking the most important and cover-rich ones.
 
--Encouraged pullback and objective clearing
 
Encouraging defenders to retreat if the attackers did capture pretty much all the objective and have vast numeric superiority (writing a line on the screen should be enough) and incentivizing attackers to check there are no enemies hiding in the remaining cover or rooms (maybe giving a little point per room/piece of cover). The reason of this is preventing people to wait for enemies to pass to be behind 
them, causing funny but very unrealistic results...
 
 
--Squad assignable capture
 
The possibility to assign the attacking of objectives to one or more squads by the team leader.
 
This is thought to work together with assigning spawns to a specific squad or squad-making by team leader (a.e. making squads basing on player's skill level).
Anyway here I am going a little bit out off topic... :)
 
--Flanks(added 13/7/2015 21:15 pm gmt 0)
 
Here the point would be to make extreme flanking totally unuseful and dangerous. No possibility to spawn there, very few to no cover and no possibility to enter objectives if coming from them and no enough short range to be effective without getting noticed and overwhelmed because of useless to no cover there. Since the tanks won't have the problem of range they should be treated differently. I did not work out any idea for them at the moment.
 
--Different kinds of objectives
This is not really about deep core capture mechanics, but I think this has to be mentioned since throwing into some gameplay variation never disappointed anyone. I would really like to work on stuff that makes the match feeling more like a mission with a story than a simple "cap this, this and this to win". 
 
Here I put a few very basic ideas, but I am sure the community can multiply them :)
  • Things to demolish closely with engineers,
  • Things to blow up even by distance (with tanks or bazookas a.e.),
  • Things to smoke,
  • Things to mark as coordinates,
  • Cover places to be suppressed for a good amount of time... 
 
And any other thing the community might be able to invent. However these are things that will likely regard the beta stage, even though they are not that difficult to implement in code.
 
OK so I think I've said more than enough of what I had to say, now let's wait for some good idea to come out and maybe get into FE :) .
 
PS:I would really appreciate also to see suggestions not only about objectives themselves but also alternative capture system.

  • kuopassa and RubberSlug like this

#3 RubberSlug

RubberSlug

    Jackboot Games

  • Jackboot Games
  • Pip
  • 12 posts

Posted 13 July 2015 - 06:47 PM

Not so much about objectives, but one thing that's always inhibited squad-based play for me in RO and RS is the spawning on squad leader mechanic being really hit and miss. Often it can't find a valid spawnpoint and sets you very far off from your squad. So squad spawning, I think, is vital to encouraging squad play between strangers.
 
Another thing that could facilitate squad play is punishing players who lone-wolf. Players who are far from their squad or squad leader could be more noticeable to the enemy through various possible cues. Maybe they could be more easily suppressed or show up on the map. I think there are many different ways of approaching it.


#4 _Nambu

_Nambu

    Junior Member

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 13 July 2015 - 08:03 PM

Not so much about objectives, but one thing that's always inhibited squad-based play for me in RO and RS is the spawning on squad leader mechanic being really hit and miss. Often it can't find a valid spawnpoint and sets you very far off from your squad. So squad spawning, I think, is vital to encouraging squad play between strangers.

 

As I've played a lot of ro2/rs too I have to say yes, There it is the only thing that tries keeping squads together. So if we' re talking about ro2/rs i defend it, but if we're talking about a new game, well there are surely better ways to achieve squad cohesion. Also remember the load of arty/nade/spawnikills or pretty unrealistic moments that come with it. Anyway I am too for squad-only spawns, but rather with them being placed near by the squad leader.

 

 

Another thing that could facilitate squad play is punishing players who lone-wolf. Players who are far from their squad or squad leader could be more noticeable to the enemy through various possible cues. Maybe they could be more easily suppressed or show up on the map. I think there are many different ways of approaching it.

 

I agree with you about lonewolfing however I generally prefer seeing more strong but soft indirect designs that make a player do something and not something else even not thinking about his choice instead of direct punishing. A.E. the system I described above would make impossible for a lonewolf to advance in the map (map is filled with objectives and there's no possibility to cap or get through one of them alone).

 

Imho it is also useful to have something that just recommends players to play the way we want them to play and which are meant to prevent the player from clashing with stronger mechanics later. A.e. screen messages encouraging retreat when there's a "get back or die" situation to prevent the player being shot by enemies which are clearing the objective or getting a forced retreat when the objective fall on enemy hands.

 

Don't forget also that newbies would always pay very high attention at the advice given at them, so even a simple advice could make a biiig difference.

 

 

I am for getting players to play the way the game is meant to be played, but forcing them in as softly as possible like if they instinctively decided to do it.



#5 FuriousBystander

FuriousBystander

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts

Posted 14 July 2015 - 01:15 AM

Whatever you guys decide, I hope it is something unique and not the usual "capture X amount of flags and you win" formula.


Posted Image


#6 Shurek

Shurek

    Veteran

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 14 July 2015 - 01:32 AM

Whatever you guys decide, I hope it is something unique and not the usual "capture X amount of flags and you win" formula.

 

Got any specific ideas?


3ka2.png


#7 FuriousBystander

FuriousBystander

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts

Posted 14 July 2015 - 01:38 AM

One thing to consider is how many people are on the server. Not all maps are appropriate for 40 v 40 matches. Even if you were to scale a moderate sized map like Raids it still wouldn't really work. So I hope you think about having scenarios that are playable by less than say, 30 players. Thoughts that come to mind are things like perhaps having a mission where a defending side has to hold a manor or farm compound against outside attack. You wouldn't necessarily need objectives for that - only consider how many men can be replaced on each side, and the availability of ammo. Imagine how intense it would be to be inside the compound as waves of infantry and armor try to break through into the interior of gates. There are other ideas like scouting for convoys that have to make it from one side of the map or the other, and you can attack them, while the other side tries to defend the convoy. I've got more ideas, and will post again.



Posted Image


#8 kuopassa

kuopassa

    Member

  • Sponsor
  • PipPipPip
  • 242 posts

Posted 14 July 2015 - 03:49 AM

If the game has some kind of map voting option at the server maybe some large maps would be automatically removed from available maps if just X players are online. And if the server has at least X players, larger maps would be available and not small ones.



#9 _Nambu

_Nambu

    Junior Member

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 14 July 2015 - 08:31 AM

Maps and gameplay adapting to the players count is a good topic too and I would really love to hear bystander's ideas, but if there isn't some connection with capture zones and capture system I think they should be posted in another thread just to stay on topic here. Anyway, I'm waiting for you :)



#10 Bones1x2

Bones1x2

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 14 July 2015 - 07:35 PM

I guess you're kind of right about getting shot from no where can get fustrating, but keep in mind not to try to attract newbies to much... You don't want to make the same mistake Tripwire did by attempting to attract both hardcore audience and newbies with ro2, and basically getting rid of the people who loved ro1.

 

It would be a very good idea to have no minimap :) too much like ro2/rs

 

No spawn on squad leader. It makes it to arcade like, instead it would be cool IMO to have Movable Deployable Spawns assigned to each squad leader via vehicle or something else.

 

Whenever you make cap zones actually have them in the building (if it is a building) instead of just having it to where u walk up to a wall and ur in the capture zone outside of where it should actually be. i.e. on Ro2 with Red October Factory first cap is right outside of the building along wall/ in the building. It would be a lot better to have it inside. I mean it is really hard to get inside, but that just illustrates how hard it is in real life.

 

As far as having the extreme flanking deal.. Having limited to no cover (For me) is a complete no go. On Battlefield 4 there is no cover and it sucks. ( I don't like bf4 btw, but it is a clear example of what im refering to as having limited to no cover). BUT having limited to no cover on extreme flanks is ok if you don't want players to do that.

 

I love the idea of having different kinds of objectives. Very good idea, but maybe have primary and secondary objectives? Primary be the capzones/ destroyable with engineers and the Secondary is marking smoke, coordinates, ect.

 

I personally like the objective bar better than star at bottom with an amount of people on each side of the star.

 

Well, I may be too harsh but I think if you guys reference more to DH or RO1 then this will be very good game.



#11 Kashash

Kashash

    Senior Member

  • Festung Europa Tester
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 14 July 2015 - 11:11 PM

Cap zones shouldn't be defined by fixed markers on the map, but rather where the defenders have their main points of resistance. And conditions for winning over a cap zone should be defined by casualties and materiel losses as the most important decider.
 
See the DH-Bridgehead map. It's a great example. Here you have objectives where sometimes they're not necessarily occupied by the defenders at all, sometimes they're just left alone. And instead the defenders sets up defending positions somewhere on the way to the town instead of the town itself.
 
I want to see this sort of flexibility on every map in FE. The variation of objectives layouts by the SL to produce the unpredictability in gameplay. Where Hills or Towns are not fixed as an objective, but the Squad leader sets the objective on the map himself. And the defender can ambush anywhere on the map whether on the road/tracks to the actual town.
 
So he would simply click anywhere on the map where to attack. The squad will naturally follow them and that way you'll have squad generally tending to stick together more if they don't have straight away from the start visible fixed objectives.
 
Each time every map would be played differently so that it has multiple flows of gameplay.
 
With movable deployable spawns players would be spawned where they last have trodden along with their Squad Leader's paths. So they're always able to go back where they were previously.
 
By having movable deployable spawns is much better than trudging from the same spawn to the same battle area all the time causing a very dull, repetitive gameplay and turning many maps into stalemates where they often go on for the entire battle (DH-Hill 400 for example comes to mind).


#12 Paulchen Panzer

Paulchen Panzer

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • LocationHamburg

Posted 15 July 2015 - 07:18 AM

 

 
--Minimum amount of players to attack
 
Capping would not start if there are not enough players to cap. Imho 2 for little capzones, and more for more important zones such as big buildings. The mean of this is to not make the players advance on that zone if there are not enough players, even if there are no enemies on the capzone. And have them group (and maybe organise) attacks, favouring squad cohesion.
 
 
 
 

 

I think a newbie will not understand this System and of course a newbie will never go to the capzone, in most cases i saw that in nearly every free weekend and the weeks after them.

 

And by the way: I`m dreaming about this game could become a good game for clanwars around between 6 vs. 6 up to 10 vs. 10. I don`t think it would work then.


Posted Image

#13 _Nambu

_Nambu

    Junior Member

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 15 July 2015 - 12:19 PM

I guess you're kind of right about getting shot from no where can get fustrating, but keep in mind not to try to attract newbies to much... You don't want to make the same mistake Tripwire did by attempting to attract both hardcore audience and newbies with ro2, and basically getting rid of the people who loved ro1.

 

It would be a very good idea to have no minimap :) too much like ro2/rs

 

No spawn on squad leader. It makes it to arcade like, instead it would be cool IMO to have Movable Deployable Spawns assigned to each squad leader via vehicle or something else.

 

Whenever you make cap zones actually have them in the building (if it is a building) instead of just having it to where u walk up to a wall and ur in the capture zone outside of where it should actually be. i.e. on Ro2 with Red October Factory first cap is right outside of the building along wall/ in the building. It would be a lot better to have it inside. I mean it is really hard to get inside, but that just illustrates how hard it is in real life.

 

As far as having the extreme flanking deal.. Having limited to no cover (For me) is a complete no go. On Battlefield 4 there is no cover and it sucks. ( I don't like bf4 btw, but it is a clear example of what im refering to as having limited to no cover). BUT having limited to no cover on extreme flanks is ok if you don't want players to do that.

 

I love the idea of having different kinds of objectives. Very good idea, but maybe have primary and secondary objectives? Primary be the capzones/ destroyable with engineers and the Secondary is marking smoke, coordinates, ect.

 

I personally like the objective bar better than star at bottom with an amount of people on each side of the star.

 

Well, I may be too harsh but I think if you guys reference more to DH or RO1 then this will be very good game.

 

-Since attracting new players, so future vets and clanmembers is something that a game is supposed to do, I think that here you meant new players that come from cod or bf.

I am not against attracting these kind of players, but in my opinion (like in yours i belive) attracting them making the gamplay closer to that of those games is a very odd way to do it.

Imho these players should be attracted presenting the game as a different and very hardcore experience from what they earlier experimented. The very sthealth-tactical behavior every newbie has at the beginning combined with historical fascination, some good amount of eyecandy graphics, and a cohesive squad imho should fail pretty rarely to catch those kind of players passing through immersion.

 

-Why? Minimap is pretty much the only thing that can give players a global comprehension of the situation (and not of only the part of map they are playng in) if they do not have any crystal ball. This was this way also in ro1.

 

-Agree

-Yeah I meant very few cover only on the flanks.

 -Yes, these kind of objectives are really likely to have different importancies, but imho basing them more on their importance on the map rather then on their nature. Smoke in front of a deadly Mg pillbox is often better than an house or a destroyed fence.

 

Cap zones shouldn't be defined by fixed markers on the map, but rather where the defenders have their main points of resistance. And conditions for winningarrow-10x10.png over a cap zone should be defined by casualties and materiel losses as the most important decider.

 

I want to see this sort of flexibility on every map in FE. The variation of objectives layouts by the SL to produce the unpredictability in gameplay. Where Hills or Towns are not fixed as an objective, but the Squad leader sets the objective on the map himself. And the defender can ambush anywhere on the map whether on the road/tracks to the actual town.

 

-Dynamic strategical layout of the map...very nice one, bro ;-)

 

I totally support your idea of having the terrain changing its importance depending on the situation. Even though objectives are supposed to represent the main points of resistance, and they can do it pretty well, they are still very limited because of their fixed nature, they can't really reflect the changing of the situation (not only in terms of squads location, but also in terms of terrain modification and destruction). This could really open a new world of possibilities.

 

Anyway, I do not agree with sls placing their objectives themselves. This would generate some pretty odd problems:

-Objectives won't be the same for the opposing sides,

-It won't be fair to reward their capture if they are not so important to defenders (or, even worse, if they were put in an enemy-free zone just to make points).

-Since objectives are made of one or more 3d shapes put together it would be really clunky to have Sls placing them correctly. Just think at multi-level buildings. And even with some with some system for making this easier some clunkiness (and the other two problems) would remain.

 

So I would rather prefer to:

- Have sls easierly choose their objectives from pre-existing  possible areas to not have the first and third problem.

- Having sls giving an indicative "importance level" to zones both to have some way to tell member where to concentrate them and a fair way to give capture points making their amount relative to the importance the defenders gave to that area.

 

Anyway doing anything to keep this as less clunkier and as intuitive as possible, since clunkiness and distraction from playing seems to be the price for these things.

 

I think a newbie will not understand this System and of course a newbie will never go to the capzone, in most cases i saw that in nearly every free weekend and the weeks after them.

 

And by the way: I`m dreaming about this game could become a good game for clanwars around between 6 vs. 6 up to 10 vs. 10. I don`t think it would work then.

 

- Try taking a closer look to my posts

If the map is filled with objectives (if we forget very extreme flanks) no matter where he is, he'll always be in some capzone.

If he tries to attack some enemy objective or get through it alone he is forced to join the squadmates or bring some of them there, if he stands on a friendly capzone alone he' ll try to find some action and get back to the first situation. In any way this can only lead to join the squadmates or having them joining him.

However imho a clear idiot-proof line appearing on the screen at the beginning and tolding the newbie to follow and support his squadmates would be enough for 90% newbies and would make these constraints a consequence of him not paying attention to the game's recommendations.

 

- Yes, what I purposed here is meant to work well with higher player counts, you' re right to bring some attention to gameplay scalability. 

Imho It'd be possible to give a try to restricted maps with bigger objectives, but I think lower player counts would better have some separated game type. What about something single-objective, similar to ro2's countdown?



#14 Paulchen Panzer

Paulchen Panzer

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • LocationHamburg

Posted 15 July 2015 - 01:12 PM

What about something single-objective, similar to ro2's countdown?

Ok comparing with RO2 isnt fair cause going to create a new game and not just a copy... but OK... i compare to RO too...sorry...

 

So Countdown Mode (1 Live) only a few clans like. Most like to play territory cause it`s much more longer in time than countdown.

 

About single cap:

If you set "Override Max Player Scaling" on your Server to 16 Player version, every Map has only one Cpazone at once. After taken this one it goes on with the next. Most dislike that. In fact we play with at least 32 Players Version and in real with 64 Player Scaling cause it gives the tactical clue and some more dynamic and flexibility IMO to Maps that have multiple Capzones at once to cap. But i don`t know how large you`re going to plan the Maps.


Posted Image

#15 Kashash

Kashash

    Senior Member

  • Festung Europa Tester
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 15 July 2015 - 01:51 PM

I don't like having multiple objectives at once, it divides the map and degenerates into silly mayhem, and don't really give the impression of being on a real battlefield but feels like you're detached from the rest of your team that you never get to see anyway. Instead, the maps just need to have more open space, if the objective is a town, make enough open space around it so that can be fought with large number of players instead of just being spawned right in front of the objective and run straight into it.
 
We want to avoid being stuck at one objective for too long like it happened on maps such as DH-Hill 400 where people endlessly run into the capzone, die and repeat with not taking into account the amount of men lost at all...
 
So I don't know if SL placing an objective themselves works or not but I thought at least the SL could place markers of the attack route. And also I believe the objective should not be visible otherwise players won't follow the team/squad, neither the SL and they will run as usuall straight into the capzone (what I just mentioned above about Hill-400) which is unrealistic...
 
And having them not visible makes it more interesting and suspenseful it is to move a squad into the unknown of the battlefield. Checking for enemy presences on the map is one of the most exciting thing, only engage with the enemy once the contact has been made and the orders are given to open fire. All this within a given time and certain amount of reinforcements to complete these missions.
 
Maybe the map could be divided into sectors and each sector given a set number of men/equipment/resources/armour. If the situation gets pretty badly the team could retreat from the sector instead of fighting to the last man and use the leftover reinforcements for the next sector.
 
And of course movable deployable spawns is something it must be implemented. And absolutely not spawning directly on top of the SL, but to resemble something of the MDV, but not as a vehicle since it generates odd problems when the MDV gets destroyed and the team can't spawn back to forward territories where they previously had secured.
 
But perhaps something of a dropped point on the map by the Squadleader and vicinity of the team that can be spawned back even when the SL dies. The spawn point only gets deactivated if it becomes a danger of the enemy. But perhaps it could be done so not instantly deactivated the minute the enemy approaches, but that endangered spawn point would be set a limit of reinforcement of men, say 30 for instance, and if that 30 men don't repel the enemy then the spawn point gets deactivated, and they get pushed back to the spawn point made earlier so the team would spawn forward to the one made just before the last one, so not like completely all the way back which is the case when the MDV is destroyed and you have to drive all over again from the very beginning which for a lot of people is a deal-breaker and thus leave the game.

  • Bones1x2 likes this

#16 Theel

Theel

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts

Posted 16 July 2015 - 12:05 AM

 

-Why? Minimap is pretty much the only thing that can give players a global comprehension of the situation (and not of only the part of map they are playng in) if they do not have any crystal ball. This was this way also in ro1.

If Festung Europa has radar, minimap, whatever you wanna call it, consider the entire community here alienated.  No one wants radar in a WWII realism game and pretty sure the line isn't very grey with this one.  "Not nobody not no how."

 

 

 

-Objectives won't be the same for the opposing sides,

I very much like this idea.  Just need to get the capturing right as attacking/defending will make less sense.  However even if slightly different, it makes for an interesting concept.

 

 

If the map is filled with objectives (if we forget very extreme flanks) no matter where he is, he'll always be in some capzone.

Why even have cap zones?  The more you have the less importance they will have and non-dramatic they'll be.  Also if objectives are all over the place it'll end up being a bunch recaptures and a circle-jerk of a game.

 

 

Maybe the map could be divided into sectors and each sector given a set number of men/equipment/resources/armour. If the situation gets pretty badly the team could retreat from the sector instead of fighting to the last man and use the leftover reinforcements for the next sector.

 

This is basically dominiation, just masked with the idea that the map is divided into sectors and not special objective areas.  I think the sector is a cool idea, but in practice will just create confusion and not create a team cohesion or common goal for the team.

 

                                                                                                                                                                                              

 

With Festung Europa, levels are likely to be designed with historical location in mind and therefore you will likely have vast changes between levels.  Each level will need special setup for it to work well.  This means you need a powerful and flexible objective and spawning system that can handle specific things that each level will need.  Otherwise, you will need to design each level to work well with a standardized system, which can be easier once you have a good game flow that players like.  It is a trade off for sure. 

 

Standardized

Will not work on some level designs

Easier overall and to predict flow of level

Spawn and boundaries easier to setup and get right (prediction)

General success across all levels (that have reasonable visuals/design)

Player experience will transfer level to level

Must play well and changed to "work" for as many level designs as possible

Players will begin to desire flexible and unique levels

 

Flexible

Supports any level design (historical)

Harder because each level is different and requires more testing and updates (harder to predict)

Spawns and boundaries very difficult to get just right

Some levels will likely end up failing continually (regardless of # of updates)

Has steeper learning curve between levels

Can be modified in each level to work a bit better

Will likely lead to a standardized system as players

decide what they like best

               

 

Personally, I would prefer a standardized setup with levels designed for the game play, but that would require all level locations to be fictional and to have a good game play.  As time goes on, a more flexible system can be implemented that would allow much harder and bizarre historical areas to be leveled.  This is likely against FE's design.  RO/DH has a mixture of flexible and standardization and this is a testament to its age and content.

 

You cannot really discuss objectives and objective zones without discussing boundaries and a spawning system.  Objectives and spawning are truly the essence of game flow.  Now you cannot discuss spawning and boundaries without talking game type.  I think the most successful game type in Darkest Hour is Push maps.  The domination type of Lutremange is also successful, but I feel it is not strong enough to have as a standardized system.  In addition, there are many technical issues with large open maps, which have no network cuts.  You cannot have a push scenario with a large open map.  Bridgehead is open and push type, but it has its bottlenecks that helped in its game flow.  Even still, Bridgehead has its problems because of its openness.  The RO minefield boundaries would have helped with the issues, but for some unknown reason I was unable to add them (editor would get super glitchy).  I am going to assume Push will be the chosen game type then.

 

Boundaries are imo very important and something that was not well supported with RO.  With proper, more powerful and respectful boundaries, I think game flow would be easier to perfect.  Why are boundaries so important?  Because they prevent spawn camping.  A realistic WWII shooter cannot really get away with spawn rooms like in Planetside 2, so you need a way to prevent (even accidental) spawn killing.  Boundaries need to be forgiving, but also effectively do their job.  Forgiving meaning they do not just immediately slay the player or suddenly stop them from moving.  A system that supports boundaries per spawn or objective would be very useful.  Let's say you have tanks unlock after so many players are on a server, you could also then widen the boundaries of the level to allow for tanks on the outskirts.

 

Spawning in a push scenario is difficult because of range.  You need cover, not just concealment, and not just small cover, but cover that offers the recently spawned to approach their objective in various directions before encountering enemy fire.  Giving players a choice where to spawn, even in slight changes (widening the spawns) will actually help a team.  Maps that just have one spawn location per team suffer from extreme casualties for the attackers.

 

Objectives and zones.  The RO objectives are actually flexible and relatively powerful.  They support number of players = capture power, radius or volume based zoning, and recapture.  The recapture could be better, better designed to support counter-attacking. 

 

The only thing I have additional to offer for objectives is a "control point".  A control point is not an objective, but a step towards an objective.  The purpose of a control point is to have an intermediate stage in the process of taking an objective.  It is something to tack in, if an objective is too hard to capture or is predicted to be needed in taking the objective.  The control point works by being an area of cover outside the capture area of an objective.  Control points should have 360 cover if possible (cover from all angles to avoid enemy fire & mortars), goal is to make it so you never see an enemy spawn.  If an attacking team captures a control point, they can have infantry spawn at that control point as long as no enemies are within a given radius.  If an enemy gets in the radius, the spawn is disabled.  Control point spawns should be considered dangerous, like a deploy vehicle, you can be killed quickly after spawning.  Control points have a spawn restriction, which only occurs if teammates die in the radius of it.  The more teammates that die, the more the restriction sets in; eventually making it so only a few spawns a minute can be done.  Why do this?  Well if a team is being slaughtered leaving the control point, it will force a team to use the normal spawn points, instead of allowing the slaughter to continue.  In addition, once the objective is captured all attached control points are also captured (forcing the enemy to recapture one to counter-attack, if that is viable).  These control points could also be useful for domination game type and should support flanks, etc.  In my original imagining of the control point, I envisioned three points around an objective, if one control point was taken; the defending team could no longer spawn at the objective and was forced to spawn at the remaining control points.  I think if you cleaned up the specifics, control points could be a positive addition to game flow.


  • 'DeadlyDad' Olson and _Nambu like this
Posted Image
Current Project: Darkest Hour 6.0

#17 Hans Ludwig

Hans Ludwig

    Elite Veteran

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,844 posts

Posted 16 July 2015 - 01:45 AM

If Festung Europa has radar, minimap, whatever you wanna call it, consider the entire community here alienated.  No one wants radar in a WWII realism game and pretty sure the line isn't very grey with this one.  "Not nobody not no how."

 

Just like some of our Q&As on the FE website a year ago had stated, there will be no minimap or gamey features in FE. We will slowly build up a database of content that discusses or answers questions and concerns in a Q&A format in hopefully a week or two.  I'm about 90 percent finished with the first Production Bytes update but waiting for one of the guys behind the full body awareness modeling to write a summary on this for me. He is currently vacationing and has limited access to anything relating to the modern world. :ph34r:



#18 _Nambu

_Nambu

    Junior Member

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 16 July 2015 - 08:23 AM

If Festung Europa has radar, minimap, whatever you wanna call it, consider the entire community here alienated. No one wants radar in a WWII realism game and pretty sure the line isn't very grey with this one. "Not nobody not no how."

I am pretty confused... Doesn't ro1 and DH have one? Press o when playing if you don't believe me... Anyway, the one of ro/DH is what mean for something that can show the situation, by displaying where capzones are and by wich faction they are owned. Nothing similar to radar or other battlefieldish stuff.

#19 Theel

Theel

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts

Posted 16 July 2015 - 09:54 AM

Mini-map is usually considered something constantly on the hud.  RO/DH has a map that  you have to bring up that makes you combat ineffective while viewing.


Posted Image
Current Project: Darkest Hour 6.0

#20 Razorneck

Razorneck

    Veteran

  • Festung Europa Tester
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 970 posts

Posted 16 July 2015 - 10:12 AM

Map-wise I always liked what Resistance and Liberation did where you physically see them pull out the map and unfold it. (I tried to find a video but I couldn't :'( )


Posted Image

Retired DH developer

Maps: Bois Jacques, Poteau Ambush (w/ Jörg Biermann), Noville, Son, Nuenen, Dog Green (w/ Exocet, Sichartshofen), Wanne (w/ BOH-rekrut)

DH Forums - Going off topic since 2006




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users